PFF's Chris Benson says Oakland will need to contain Denver's wideouts and play better on both lines if they're to stand a chance, and he thinks the Broncos could try to focus on running the ball tonight.

Andrew Mason gets the same sense regarding the running game from Peyton Manning's comments, and he reminds everyone that the injury to Woodyard is a fine reminder of why the Broncos were wise not to ditch D.J. Williams.

Jeff Legwold gives Denver the edge in every facet of the game, goes over their keys to victory, and stubbornly insists it's important that they overcome their negative turnover differential. Now for reality - the Broncos were minus-6 through five games, and have been plus-3 in the seven games since. They've already turned things around, so it's useless to focus on the overal differential at this point.

While John Elway had praised the throw made by Manning on his first touchdown to Demaryius Thomas against Tampa Bay, Legwold details the excellent communication between the two players that led to their second score of the day.

Legwold also discusses the vast improvements shown by Rahim Moore in his second season, although Legwold's snap data shows much smaller numbers than does PFF, which has Moore listed as having played 846 defensive snaps. By PFF's accounting, eight Broncos defenders have seen at least 699 snaps, with Moore, Champ Bailey, and Mike Adams all above the 800-snap threshold.

Bucs rookie Mark Barron marveled at the in-game adjustments made by Peyton Manning last week:

It was amazing, almost like I thought he was cheating. I was just kind of in amazement that he was able to recognize some the things that we were doing. Most of it was new but he picked up on it and he recognized a lot of the things that we were doing.

Along those same lines, Jemele Hill appropriately writes that it's time we re-examine how domestic violence is handled in the world of American sports. Indeed, something is wrong when a player is suspended longer for using Adderall than he is for beating up his wife or girlfriend, if he's punished for that at all.

Ray Lewis returned to practice for Baltimore with the expectation he'll play next week against Denver, while Terrell Suggs says he's planning to suit up this week despite having suffered a torn biceps.

Sexy Rexy says he's sticking with Buttfumble as his starting QB at Jacksonville, where they've uncovered vacant seats for the return of the Ultimate Teammate™.

Cam Newton apparently made more enemies than friends at the last Pro Bowl, which prompted AFC defenders to turn up their games on the field against him.

On the topic of overinflated egos, Browns tackle Joe Thomas says having Peyton Hillis on his team last year was an endless soap opera, and that Hillis was all-consumed by his desire for a new contract.

Not that the NFL is planning to put a team at the Rose Bowl, but Pasadena residents are proactively protesting against such a possibility.

Analysis

The idea that the successes of this year's rookie quarterbacks says anything about how next season's rookie passers will fare is a ludicrous one, and if NFL decision makers really think they can start X player in 2013 because Luck and RG3, then they're not long for their jobs. Let's remember that every starting rookie QB this season won their jobs in training camp, and pretty clearly. Also, there is no Luck or RG3 in the coming draft.

Data from across the league shows that indeed, it's all about passing the ball, which has resulted in teams handing it off more rarely than ever, but also at unprecedented rates of success.

While the guys over at the DP continue to incorrectly say the Broncos struggle running the ball and stopping the run, Chase Stuart more intelligently examines success rates, finding Willis McGahee as the second-most efficient back in the league, and both the run offense and defense among the league's better units. Stuart still expects Denver to win out and end up at 13-3.

Ben Muth breaks down a rather creative play-action pass from Tom Brady to Aaron Hernandez that must have been drawn up by Bill Belichick, and not Josh McDaniels, amirite?

Broncos are AFCW champs again, have won seven straight, and are tied with Ravens and Pats behind Texans in AFC race; Woodyard day-to-day with ankle injury

I looked a bit deeper and it seems like the statistics don't completely agree. One source claims the rate of spousal homicide is more like 60 wives killing their husbands for every 100 husbands who kill their wives. A couple things are certain, men kill and are killed at a much higher rate across all homicides than women and women who are victims of chronic domestic abuse kill their partners at a disproportionately higher rate. There are numbers provided by the Department of Justice and the FBI, along with some university studies available. My advice is to Google "murder rates of significant others by gender" if you want to do further research.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-12-07 09:28:52

Hey, aLuffabo! I support and "acknowledgement" of the tragedy itself at halftime. THAT truly does sit in the "football world". But, as has been pointed out, the tragedy COULD have been carried out by means other than a firearm.

The fact that they didn't just express heart-felt condolences to family/friends/teammates/victims/perpetrators for WHATEVER it was that was tragic, and made it distinctly a "gun-control" issue, is what puts "agenda" into play (for me).

Posted by KRONK_00 on 2012-12-06 18:01:18

I agree with you, I don't like having silliness interrupt my football viewing. However, as this was an event specific to football, I believe Costas had the right to speak his mind at that time, whether I or anyone else agree with the content of his speech.

Posted by aLuffabo on 2012-12-06 17:33:03

Ummm... his coaches are McDaniels and Belichek - there definitely is cheating going on.

Posted by billyricky on 2012-12-06 17:02:24

There's a BIG difference in using a gun vs. using your hands (or even a knife). Using a gun is a detached act - you don't touch the other person, you don't feel them struggling, you don't get that close to them. It's like watching it on TV. It's also so quick - no chance to stop or back off.

There's no question there would be a lot less murders if there were no guns. Anybody who says otherwise is deluding themselves (would the Aurora theatre shooter have gone seat to seat with a knife, or his bare hands?). However, in a practical sense we'll never get to that point, and many (if not most) people don't want to get there, because of hunting, personal protection, etc.

So it's a pretty complex issue on how to reduce gun violence, reduce guns in the hands of mentally ill people and criminals, while allowing guns for hunting and personal protection.

What gets me about the pro-gun people is that they won't even admit that even common sense small steps, like more serious background checks, are a good thing. And banning assault weapons? I have yet to hear any argument that makes sense about why assault weapons should be legal.

Posted by billyricky on 2012-12-06 16:52:51

We got a two-fer today.

First, on Costas. I have read all of the posts above. Some; excellent/well-thought-out/well-researched/relevant points. Some not-so-much. Either way, my own position is that

Posted by KRONK_00 on 2012-12-06 16:40:47

Such a well thought out essay, that it's a shame it's posted when the thread is past it's blog-life. Please copy and paste to the next lard where this issue comes up and send it to the Denver Post editors while you're at it.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 16:39:00

Here in Arizona any fool can buy a gun, but you need a license, registration and insurance to buy a car. I would think the standards should be at best be equal.

Posted by iamafreeman on 2012-12-06 15:54:23

The whole discussion about firearms overlooks some points that need to be considered -- it's a far more complex issue than most people make it out to be.

Akhil Reed Amar wrote an excellent book about the Constitution, in which he went into the ideas behind the preamble, the various articles that make up the original Constitution and each of the amendments.

He first gets into the Second Amendment, in which he talks about how those who crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote the amendment because they admired what the minutemen did in the events that led up to, and were part of, the American Revolution. They felt it was thus important to allow for regular citizens to be armed in case they needed to come to the defense of the nation.

But later in the book, when he discussed the 14th Amendment, he talks about how many of the former Confederate states were passing "black codes" that, among other things, prohibited blacks from owning firearms. There was a reason for that which I'm sure you can easily figure out. So when Congress passed a Civil Rights Act after the 14th Amendment was ratified, part of that act prohibited states from banning firearm ownership on the basis of race. Amar argues that was the first time Congress interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to individual ownership of firearms for more than just the defense of the nation.

I am well aware of the Supreme Court rulings recently made but none of those proved what the Founding Fathers thought. They simply reflect what the Court deems is or isn't allowed by the Constitution. But what any Court grouping thinks and what the Founding Fathers think are not necessarily the same thing.

On another note, Jonah Goldberg recently wrote an article for The Atlantic in which he examined all the issues regarding gun ownership and gun control. He came to the conclusion that banning all and any firearms does not solve anything and isn't practical, but added that doesn't mean that the exact opposite of "more firearms will solve everything" is therefore true and that, in some cases, it is acceptable to have some measures in place to ensure guns don't end up in the hands of the wrong people.

What people need to stop doing is arguing either side as if it's an "all or nothing" proposition and start looking at what is reasonable.

Here's one thing to think about: Not all firearms are created the same and some are created specifically for hunting or shooting sports. The ones created specifically for those purposes would not be used by criminals. Therefore, I would never consider banning any of those firearms.

But here's something else to consider: Just because you put a firearm in somebody's hand, it doesn't mean they are protected and that they will automatically know how to respond to every situation. This is the reason why that, while I favor concealed carry, I strongly favor those who wish to conceal carry to demonstrate they know how to safely use firearms and understand how to respond to situations before you allow them to conceal carry.

It's issues like the two I mentioned that people need to think about and not just simply declare that this is an "all or nothing" issue.

As far as mental health issues go, we need to remember that our understanding of the human brain remains limited. Much of the research regarding concussions and how they affect people mentally, as well as what we have learned about other mental health issues, is fairly recent and we are still trying to figure out exactly how we address them.

The one problem with doing mental health checks for people who wish to purchase firearms is that, in order to have that information available, people need to report them. This means parents need to be more aware of their children and understand what to look for that might suggest their children have a mental issue that needs addressing, and to get others to be aware of how their friends, family and co-workers are acting so they can encourage these people to get some help. If somebody has a mental issue but people just assume "oh, he's OK" and don't do anything to help, then how can somebody selling firearms know who he is dealing with?

In short, what this country needs regarding mental health issues is intervening with these people before they do something illegal or seriously wrong, and not just wait until after the fact to punish these people, then assume they have learned their lessons.

Posted by Bob on 2012-12-06 15:34:27

aLuffabo I fortunately do not have a real world comparison from my time when it comes to use of anything available to compare to the use of a firearm or someone being killed. If we use a theoretical comparison of someone punching the victim in the chest one time versus them shooting them one time in the chest area, the bullet will get the nod in the comparison for the most potential lethality. I wish I had the ability to get the break down of total number of attacks with guns versus other improvised weapons. The trouble with that comparison is the number of assaults that go unreported, because there wasn't a gun used or the police or EMS were not called.

Posted by akatom3565 on 2012-12-06 15:14:09

Tom Brady looks so good he probably is cheating.

Posted by ohiobronco on 2012-12-06 15:01:59

akatom-

I'm sure you're correct regarding people using whatever is available.

I'm sure you've noticed a difference in fatality rates in incidents that involve a firearm and those that don't?

Posted by aLuffabo on 2012-12-06 14:22:49

Great comment. There's not much margin for error with a gun. A lot of other lethal forces take some time where a conscience or sympathy or remorse might kick in before that last fist blow, knife strike, hand squeeze , etc finishes the assault into murder. (Case in point, I just got the heebie jeebies just typing in that last clause).

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 14:05:37

In my experience as a police officer people will use what ever is available. It is shocking the first time you come to a home where domestic violence has occurred and the house is a total shambles.

Posted by akatom3565 on 2012-12-06 14:01:18

Never to early for that one

Posted by akatom3565 on 2012-12-06 13:58:32

akatom3565: I'm feeling bad about hijaking a Bronco blog with a gun-control debate, though I suspect our hosts have some tolerance for some ancillary debates. BTW: Thanks for your experience in law-enforcement. There already is gun control, just not enough, IMO.

That Costas is getting so much shit for engaging in debate is as much an issue as gun control itself insofar as it's almost become a McCarthy-esque type of blacklisting offense to even go there and discuss it.

And with that (unless someone replies to Chad with an inflammatory moronic comment that overcomes my better judgment to leave well enough alone, because I am weak) I have said enough about gun control.

GO BRONCOS!

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 13:48:57

I feel a little apprehension but feel Peyton won't let this team go down with out a fight. I just wish I could shake the feeling that McCoy and Fox are holding back the offense. The old safe playing not to lose deal, maybe it's not that but not sure how else you explain the lackluster offensive performances at times.

Yesterday, iamafreeman thanked the board for not sinking into a debate about gun control. I guess he was a bit premature.

I grew up around guns. I used to be an NRA member, until the NRA decided it was an arm of the Republican party. Now, just like Grover Norquist, the NRA stakes out extreme positions and refuses to compromise. But I still own guns.

I don't know if Costas is right or wrong. Maybe Belcher would have killed her anyway. But I don't doubt that having a gun made it a lot easier.

Posted by Alaskan on 2012-12-06 13:34:40

Magster I get what you are saying, but I can also purchase and own as many cars, suv's or four wheelers I want. Yes we do pay the taxes on our registrations on vehicles but I also pay taxes when I purchase a firearm or ammunition from a licensed dealer. We live in a country with a lot of freedom, and sadly there are people who abuse this freedom to the detriment of themselves and others. As a country kid I find it hilarious to see someone in a suit and tie driving a one ton pickup, maybe he uses it maybe he doesn't but it is his right as he is paying for it not me. The spin for this whole deal is based on your own personal beliefs and what you like or don't like. After dealing with alcohol crazed individuals as a law enforcement officer, I am not a big drinker nor do I like to go to bars or parties where people are out of control stupid. I think we have enough laws on the books to enforce and address the issue that plague or country. The majority of us don't care about the rules and regulations governing things in till it affects us and what we like to do. I had two times where I could have been killed, once by a gun and once by a 30 motor home during a traffic stop. The gun issue was fueled by alcohol and the other was fueled by an idiot who wasn't paying attention to the road and didn't pull over to the other side of the road or slow down. Either situation could of killed me and left my four kids with out a father. I favor a driving test and training but not a ban on motor homes lol.

Posted by akatom3565 on 2012-12-06 13:33:10

Nick: It is a rub. But, I would venture that the penalties for DUI offenders who did not end up killing or injuring someone, for example, have reduced the incidence of drunk driving. There is a point where the "bad people" who are less bad than others, take notice of consequences before they make a bad decision.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 13:31:51

Chad: To your second point, you can bet that the drunk dipshits who run over little girls , if there are enough of them, will motivate ignition breathalyzer interlock ignition devices as standard. It's already become much more standard for even 1st offense DUI drivers, and like all other technologies (like airbags and backup cameras) is getting cheaper and cheaper to make standard. I'd be down for the ignition interlock requirement as it stands right now, frankly.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 13:20:28

And McFadden is probably back too. Despite his disappointing season, he still scares me. Especially with Woodyard out.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 13:16:47

If you have time, I would love to read that stuff. Thanks Yahmule.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 13:15:01

Magster's right to say that the massive benefits associated with automobiles is worth the fatalities, even if that's not really the thrust of his argument. I don't buy the argument that outlawing something is worthwhile "if it saves just one life" nothing in life is absolute, including life itself. Everything has pro and cons, and we have to make subjective decisions like this every day. There's no way to objectively state that cars are worth automotive fatalities (at least those that are avoidable via safety features, well maintained roads, and reasonaly traffic laws), but we've all collectively come to the conclusion that the trade off is worth while - the evidence is all over our drive ways, streets, and parking lots right now.

and with that, I think I'll drive to the mall for some lunch!

Posted by Hercules_Rockefeller on 2012-12-06 13:14:44

Magster, that's the rub. Responsible gun owners are the ones who follow all the rules and regulations, even if they don't agree with them. People who will murder, rob, rape with use of a firearm probably won't give a damn how tough we make the anti-gun laws.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 13:14:15

akatom3565: Yeah, I am I guess. And, whether the rest of us are too ashamed to say it doesn't change the fact that everyone who drives a car has made this morbid cost-benefit analysis too.

Now, in terms of guns v. car metaphor, what is more heavily regulated than cars (traffic laws and punishment for violating them, safety standards, insurance requirements, emission standards, licensing,taxes and registration) and there certainly isn't any shortage of cars or people declaring that the government can only take away their cars from their cold dead lead-foot. People just accept the regulations and "car-control" as a necessary means to reduce the number of fatalities to an acceptable minimum. If people accepted gun regulations to the extent they accept car regulations, the country would be a better place.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 13:03:12

I didn't want to hear Costas be pro or anti gun, that should not been the focus of his time. The egregious proclamation that they would still both be alive was an over the top assumption nothing factual that could prove this either way. This was neither the time or place for this discussion on gun control in this particular 90 seconds. How about bringing this issue of domestic violence to the forefront of this moment, not hiding behind the method in which it occurred. The focus should of been the needless tragedy of this incident, how about him calling out the NFL for their double standard with this issue. The NFL will fine you for anything and everything, suspend you when you use PED but we heard nothing but crickets in the background from them. Wasn't it McClain from the Raiders who pointed a gun at a person, what happened to him, did he get suspended or receive a punishment. How about our old friend Brandon Marshall, how many times were Bronco fans greeted with the news of possible domestic violence over the years. The NFL has buried it head in the sand for decades, did we hear about how the NFL wants to come out and deal with this issue in a better manner. The core issue is the violence not the method in which it is carried out. I have investigated enough of these incidents to know that what is used is will be what ever is available. Seen everything from cast iron skillets to toilet brushes, and anything in between. Alcohol along with drugs, and bad relationships is the starter fluid for violence, lets start with education and using the laws we already have on the books. Individuals who are convicted of domestic violence or who have had a restraining order filed against them are not allowed to purchase guns and being in possession of one a crime itself.

Posted by akatom3565 on 2012-12-06 13:02:51

Posting from my phone, Nick, so not able to link. Will try to remember to do that this evening.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-12-06 12:59:41

I little off topic :) but did anyone see the article on NFL.com showing that PMFM is hitting passes that go more than 20 yards in the air at the highest rate of his career?

I had been worried about overconfidence too, and this possibly being a trap game prior to the Ravens game.

This morning I heard a quote from Fox on Sirius (from his interview Wed or Thurs) where he basically said, "we've been stressing all week that these guys practice and get paid too, so they're going to play hard and we need to play hard. we played a 1-win team a few weeks ago and they almost beat us." That made me feel better that they're not overlooking this.

Finally, I think the Thursday game helps us some. With the shorter week, teams have less time to prepare and implement as detailed of game plans. So it often comes down to more of the talent level and less of the scheming. Even though we're familiar opponents, I am counting on the fact that we're vastly superior in talent to carry us through in tonight's game.

Posted by QDoc on 2012-12-06 12:42:57

akatom3565, I believe what magser is saying is that Chad Jensen's analogy is a bad one.

Posted by pbmann on 2012-12-06 12:40:51

Magster, I dunno about it being a failure. I'm simply making a point. If a little girl gets hit by a drunk driver whilst crossing the street, she is a dead innocent. Is she not? Now, was her death the fault of the vehicle, or the dipshit driving the car, who decided to get wasted before getting behind the wheel? You tell me, homeboy.

Posted by Chad Jensen on 2012-12-06 12:39:44

Oakland has plenty of motivational advantages tonight. Division rival. Big home underdog on Monday Night. The desire to come out strong in support of their coach. Peyton Manning is the reason I feel confident. His work ethic and preperation kind of vaccinates the whole team against complacency.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-12-06 12:30:26

While I live in Texas and am comfortable with guns and condone guns being owned legally by responsible persons, I think it's fairly obvious that having a gun available makes it much easier to commit both murder and suicide.

It is much easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone to death, or strangle them, etc...

Who knows, maybe if Belcher didn't have a gun with him that day he would have just beat his girlfriend instead. It is a possibility. If he was completely bent on ending her life, of course, nothing would have stopped him. But maybe he made that wrong decision in the heat of the moment, and guns have a way of making those bad decisions come to fruition very quickly, and very easily, with permanent and lethal consequences.

Posted by aLuffabo on 2012-12-06 12:25:08

Magster: I am not sure what you are trying to get across. Am I correct to assume that you are not saying that because of the massive economic and social expansion that came from cars and trucks means that fatalities are acceptable?

Posted by akatom3565 on 2012-12-06 12:15:58

Is anyone else feeling apprehensive about tonight's game? The smell of overconfidence is present, and while there's good reason for it, I don't like it.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 12:15:13

Can you provide a source for those stats? I'd be interested to read that. And although we're talking about homicides and the Belcher situation, I'm also talking about domestic violence in general...

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 12:14:12

Now if you want to phase out cars, especially SUVs and unnecessarily large pickup trucks for people with office jobs, because of global warming, then maybe that's something that should be done.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 12:06:33

For every 100 husbands who kill their wives, roughly 75 wives kill their husbands. Many of the woman who kill were victims in an abusive relationship. In general, women are more likely to kill someone they know, while men are more likely to kill strangers, and to commit any kind of homocide or violent crime.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-12-06 12:06:19

The benefits of cars and trucks is massive economic and social expansion. The benefits of guns owned by people who don't them are dead innocents, violent crimes and fear. Your sarcastic metaphor is a failure.

Posted by magster on 2012-12-06 11:44:44

Nick and Atomic: Thanks for all your observations. This centers on something we, as a nation, need to talk about more.Atomic: as for your question, why are we unhappier now than in years past? Excellent question, one that has been on my mind for a long time.A couple things I think of: one, we have come to live in an artificial world. To get warm, we just move the lever on the thermostat. To get light, we just flick the switch. One of the most serene periods of my life was when I lived in a rural cabin. To get water, you had to use the long handled pump. To get heat, you had to bring wood in and feed the stove. Everything made sense. Really different from these days, when people drive off to KMart for stuff they don't need, and spend most of their leisure time thumbing the little electronic thing they're holding.There's another reason, though. I really believe that, since mankind ventured into space, and we got pictures of our little planet against a backdrop of black nothingness (which might be everythingness), humans have been experiencing a psychological crisis. The human psyche needs a big overhaul, but it's going to take awhile.This is an interesting discussion, maybe too much for a football site.Contact me offline if you want: bradleywjd@aol.com.

Posted by bradley on 2012-12-06 11:43:31

"Let me guess, when someone says something controversial that you agree with you are first in line to cry about politcal correctness."

In my case no. People are free to spew whatever nonsense they wish. Including making an issue out of something that is ancillary to the more substantive issues in Jovan Belcher's case.

Let me guess, when someone says something controversial that you agree with you are first in line to cry about politcal correctness.

Posted by ohiobronco on 2012-12-06 11:15:08

I agree.

The fact that Costas goes on a very pointed 90 second rant about how guns are the issue while quoting from that blowhard Whitlock betrays his true feelings (Which just having heard something on the news, is obviously a gun agenda on his part) and only points to an incidental issue of this whole tragic story.

Of course, it has been blown out of proportion on either side, with Costas walking back his statements claiming he didn't have enough time to flesh out his opinion, though he seemed to get his point across well if you ask me; and the other side, convinced Costas wants all guns in a land fill.

I think most people missed the point. This kid had issues far beyond being a football playing youth who owned a pistol. Something tragic was bound to happen with or without guns, with or without football and the fact that the Chiefs were trying to get him professional help and that despite that he murdered his child's mother with his own mother present..

I don't know the full scope of the issues Jovan Belcher was dealing with, whether it was a chemical dependency, brain damage from football, depression (a personal demon of my own) or some combination of things listed and not, I do know the kid was bound to do something hurtful to himself or others because his actions indicate that.

That needs to be the focus. Why are we unhappier today than we were in years past? We are more drug dependent, less willing to face hardship and quick to pass blame on others. These are some of the things I, personally, believe we need to look at.

In many cases it starts at home. That's not to lay blame for this all at the feet of Belcher's mother but there are many questions to ask. Was his father around, was there any abuse, what sort of environment did he live in? Often times as we all hear, abusing --whether it's drugs, alcohol, people or creatures-- follows from witnessing or experiencing abuse. Is this the case? Who knows.

Bottom line is, I think making this about guns is tragic in it's own right since we are not actually exploring the real reasons why Belcher was so damaged and why many other players act out.

Posted by atomiccityblues on 2012-12-06 11:08:51

Ill be in section 220 :)

Posted by RyanHennigan on 2012-12-06 11:01:56

I can't imagine how a professional athlete that can bench press 400 lbs could cause physical harm to an individual without a firearm. Costas is an idiot and needs to be fired.

Posted by Truman Jensen on 2012-12-06 11:00:39

Forgive me, I'm all over the place...but in the heat of the moment in a domestic situation, lack of access to a gun is not quite the deterrent one would think. This is all anecdotal, to be sure, but in most of the domestic-related homicides I've seen, the woman has been killed by strangulation, blunt force, stabbing with a kitchen knife, in that order.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 10:55:02

Hey Bradley, you make several excellent points. I didn't read the Costas article, I was referring more to the halftime sermon he delivered. So thank you for telling me about Costas's more nuanced stand in the article.

I get what you're saying about people being killed by loved ones every day, and it's a fair point. I was overgeneralizing, to be sure, but in my professional and personal lives, I've dealt with countless women that have been battered and/or killed by the men in their lives. It's unfair of me to stereotype in that way, because it is no less tragic when a man (or woman) is killed by a female significant other. In the context of this tragedy, I was thinking more of male pro athletes who have this kind of behavior toward women swept under the rug (*cough*Marshall*cough*). Although, to be fair to B-Marsh, I guess he has been a victim AND aggressor in many of his incidents.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 10:51:58

I believe that exact event happened when Tebow was a Gator. Not sure it would work in the NFL though.

Posted by bradley on 2012-12-06 10:32:18

Costas did say (at least in the article Doug linked) that he supports the Second Amendment and does not want to take guns away from responsible owners. He also said he feels safer without one, referring to the cases of people that go off suddenly and kill someone (I suppose he knows himself, and is afraid of a dark side?).Charles Barkley said that he carries a gun all the time, at least in his car, and feels safer for it. He also says it would take a lot for him to even touch the thing.Both views have merit. I'm with Barkley.As for the view that people could kill someone else without a gun, that's certainly true. But I do think that the slower methods are a bit of a deterrent, if just a small bit.I have to differ with the statement that "women are killed by significant others every day". Not that it's untrue, but a more factual statement would be that significant others are killed by significant others every day. Women don't kill as often as men, but they do kill.

Posted by bradley on 2012-12-06 10:28:54

Yep.

And I revel in them being terrible. It doesn't take away from game day for me one bit... I love beating the Raiders further into their black hole.

Posted by aLuffabo on 2012-12-06 10:27:32

"...that must have been drawn up by Bill Belichick, and not Josh McDaniels, amirite?"

LOL. Nice one. I think the only thing that would have made that play more successful is if you had Tebow throwing it instead of Brady. Tebow could have faked a hand-off to himself, run around in the backfield until all the defenders were chasing him, loft that duck high up into the air, stiff-armed some of the defenders, ran down the field and caught the pass for the score! BOOM! And then drop to one knee, of course.

Posted by EastCoastBronco7 on 2012-12-06 10:16:23

"...applaud Costas for taking a stand on an important issue, no matter the forum, and so do we." Would those same people applaud Costas for taking a stand if he was taking a stand in suppport of responsible gun ownership?

Honestly, I say good for him speaking up. I think the biggest problem most people have is the air of smug self-righteousness that he uses in almost everything he does. I realize that's his schtick, but come on. The debate over what the Second Amendment means has been around almost as long as the Amendment itself. But Costas at halftime of a NFL game has it all figured out! And MY biggest problem with what he said is reflected in the Jemele Hill article. Women are killed by significant others every day. Sometimes with guns; sometimes with knives, ropes, vehicles. Lots of times, through use of blunt force and/or strangulation. In fact, several states have enacted laws specifically dealing with the use of strangulation in domestic violence situations. So with his national pulpit, in the wake of this tragedy, instead of delving into the macho culture that likes to sweep that kind of thing under the rug, Costas decides to go with "ZOMG GUNS are so bad!"

I would be remiss if I didn't add, thanks for the Lard, and for including the Jemele Hill article.

Posted by Nick (ncm42) on 2012-12-06 10:14:52

When are we gonna sack up as a nation and make the tough decisions? Cars are too dangerous to trust to individuals! They kill a butt-load of people every year. More than guns! We need to do what's best for the collective and put an end to cars. I mean, horses never killed people the way that cars do. But then again, we don't wanna get back to riding horses and get back to our oppressive ways again. Those poor beasts of burden. Let's just walk everywhere. ALL other forms of transportation are ether too dangerous, or too oppressive.

Posted by Chad Jensen on 2012-12-06 10:13:44

How nice is it to be playing on the road against a traditional division rival and think the game is a tuneup? And how nice to be tuning up against a 3 and 9 team instead of being the 3 and 9 team. TYJE.

Posted by Alaskan on 2012-12-06 10:11:49

Von impression from today's NFLN interview:

"Well, you know Doug, I'm just going to take today's Lard one article at a time. That's really all I'm focused on. You know, just go through this Lard one article at a time and, you know, good things are gonna happen."

I tried to watch that interview one "one at a time" at a time. I think it was, you know, successful. :)

Posted by EastCoastBronco7 on 2012-12-06 09:51:19

"Along those same lines, Jemele Hill appropriately writes that it's time we re-examine how domestic violence is handled in the world of American sports. Indeed, something is wrong when a player is suspended longer for using Adderall than he is for beating up his wife or girlfriend, if he's punished for that at all."

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-12-06 09:43:43

The article on Cam Newton reminds me that we can't thank Carolina enough for taking him first in the draft, leaving the best player for us.So, thank you, Carolina.

Posted by bradley on 2012-12-06 09:26:58

I still hate the Raiders more than any other team we play. Go Broncos!